idea, not impementing today
This commit is contained in:
parent
535ad3ba75
commit
ce8a034ecd
1 changed files with 21 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||||
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
||||||
|
username="joey"
|
||||||
|
subject="""comment 4"""
|
||||||
|
date="2020-02-26T22:34:35Z"
|
||||||
|
content="""
|
||||||
|
Hmm, one idea is that git-annex fsck --from remote, when the remote is
|
||||||
|
encrypted, could check if the non-encrypted key is present. If so, it
|
||||||
|
could warn loudly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
(I don't think it could delete it safely; the user would still have to do
|
||||||
|
that. Deleting it might violate numcopies and lead to data loss. It
|
||||||
|
could move it to the local repo, but that risks fsck filling up the local
|
||||||
|
repo, and also it's not guaranteed that the local repo is a place the user
|
||||||
|
expects to continue storing data; it could even be a throwaway repo they're
|
||||||
|
going to nuke after the fsck.)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This does make a slow fsck path even slower, which is a bit of a heavy
|
||||||
|
price to pay going forward. Although the belt-and-suspenders nature
|
||||||
|
of checking that git-annex has not forgotten to encrypt some data may be
|
||||||
|
worth it.
|
||||||
|
"""]]
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue